Wiggins & Anor, R (on the application of) v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council

When determining school-closure proposals under the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 and the School Organisation Code, a local authority must consider the financial costs caused by closure, including potential staff redundancy costs. Those costs need not be known precisely, but a reasonable estimate or worst-case assessment should be provided where the issue is raised. The authority must also comply with the Code’s requirements concerning consultation, objections, alternatives, transport and educational provision. A failure to quantify redundancy costs does not necessarily require relief. Under section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, relief may be refused where it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different.

The claimants challenged decisions by Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council to close Clun Primary School and Pontrhydyfen Primary School and provide education at Ynysfach Primary School and Cwmafan Primary School respectively.

Ms Wiggins’s permission application had initially been refused and was renewed. Ms Jones applied for permission. The claims were linked and heard together at a rolled-up hearing. The principal issues were whether the consultation and decision-making process complied with the School Organisation Code, whether financial appraisals adequately addressed transport, maintenance and redundancy costs, and whether alternative arrangements, including federation, had been properly considered.

1. The court refused permission in both claims. The Council’s decisions were not quashed.
2. Part 3 of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 and the School Organisation Code establish a structured process for participative local decision-making. The authority must comply with mandatory requirements and have regard to relevant guidelines. The consultation must occur at a formative stage, provide sufficient reasons and information, allow adequate time for response, and ensure that responses are conscientiously considered.
3. Redundancy payments are costs incurred as a result of closing a school and are relevant under the Code. The references to financial costs, potential savings, staff costs and transport costs are inclusive. Although the precise amount may be uncertain, the Council should have identified an appropriate estimate, including a worst-case figure if necessary. Its failure to do so was unlawful.
4. The other complaints were rejected. The Council adequately explained the maintenance figures and transport costs for Clun. For Pontrhydyfen, the transport estimate included the relevant annual cost and proposed capital works. The federation of Pontrhydyfen and Cwmafan had already been considered and rejected in the consultation document, with reasons extending beyond cost. The consultation and objection reports adequately recorded the relevant responses, and members had access to the objections.
5. In assessing relief under section 31(3)(C) and (D) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the court considered the position at the time of the decisions and did not rely on subsequent events. On a worst-case assumption that all relevant staff would be made redundant and redundancy costs were comparable to a deputy head teacher’s salary, substantial savings would remain. The educational grounds for closure were independent of the financial case. It was therefore highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different.

The judgment was a first-instance decision on linked judicial review claims. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.